The trees bear the same relation to the fruit as the leased asset does to its benefits, and in both cases it is impossible to obtain what the contract was intended to provide. Abū Thawr thus consistently applied an unsound analogy, just as the majority consistently applied the sound analogy in granting relief for losses caused by calamities and annulling leases.

If the asset perishes during the lease term, the lease is annulled for the remaining period, but not for the period already elapsed. There is an anomalous dissenting view that it is also annulled retrospectively. If some of the leased assets become unusable, the corresponding share of the rent ceases to be due, just as when some of the items sold perish—for example, when some of the hired animals die or some of the leased houses collapse.

The loss of use can occur in two ways:

First, the asset itself perishes, as when a hired slave or animal dies.

Second, the asset loses its usefulness because something happens to it that prevents its use, as when a house collapses or farmland is flooded or loses its water supply. If no benefit remains, it is exactly like an asset that has perished; no scholar distinguishes between the two.

If some of its intended benefit is lost while some remains—for example, the land can be cultivated without water, but with a diminished crop, or the water recedes from flooded land in a manner that prevents some cultivation or crop growth—the lessee has the right to rescind the lease. This is comparable to a defect in an item sold; it does not automatically invalidate the lease. There are two opinions within the school as to whether he may retain the lease with compensation. If its use is lost for part of the term, he owes rent in proportion to the benefit he has derived